$40M For What?

[CrespoBlows]

The only examples of loaded teams you provided were ones that won the WS. If winning a WS is a prerequisate to being loaded then you can't also say with any conviction whether this team is or isn't.

 

Again, I say nowhere that winning a WS is a prerequisite to being a dominant team.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/SEA/2001.shtml

 

This team was loaded.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CLE/1995.shtml

 

So was this one.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1997.shtml

 

And this one.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1998.shtml

 

This one was too.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1998.shtml

 

What about this one?

 

 

I think this team certainly can win the WS. I think this team could have one of the top 5 offenses in the league and the top 5 pitching staffs in the league.

 

Sure, they can, but that bullpen and lack of balance in the lineup will probably hold them back.

 

 

You said they can't because they have some questions (notice, those questions weren't starting pitching or hitting, but relief pitching). I questioned the criteria that you set.

 

What the f*** are you talking about? I did say loaded teams don't start Julian Tavarez, Coco Crisp, Jason Varitek, and have a s***** bullpen. I included all aspects of the team.

[example1]

This is the stupidest discussion I've ever spent a fair amount of time on. You point to some good teams. You obviously changed the wording from "loaded" (which is a subjective and slippery term) to "dominant" (which is an after-thought assessment) and thus set up an argument that you can't lose. You point to dominant teams, so what?

 

Will there be dominant teams this year? Yes. Did you name any of them as "loaded" when I asked earlier "which teams would you point to that are dominant?". No. All the teams this year and in years past have had weaknesses, often with questions about the bullpen, the offense produced by a player or two in the lineup, etc., Given that this discuss started with SOMEONE ELSE using the term "loaded" and I responded to HIM, and now you're changing which word we're talking about I just can't stand arguing with you about a non-subject.

 

This team is as well equiped as any other to make the playoffs and win. That was my point. By referring to a team as "not being loaded" I took that to mean they weren't going to be able to beat other teams who were loaded.

 

You say loaded teams don't start Julian Tavarez, Coco Crisp and Jason Varitek then you list a team that has, just for one quick example, Michael Tucker as the starting RF for ATL, with a .745 OPS and .244 AVG. I really just think you're bitching about guys you don't like on the team in an attempt to make yourself seem smart. Dan Wilson: .708 OPS. How about Al Martin in 100 games with his .715 OPS? Brad Ausmus and his .713 OPS? Tony Pena and his .678 OPS? You shoot your argument in the foot time and time again.

 

If your point is that either "dominant" or "loaded" teams don't have weak spots I think you should look again at what you provided. Again, though, I've been saying that for a few pages now; so if you want to continue putting out thoughtful posts that take a lot of time, be my guest. I'm just done with your argumentitiveness.

[RobZombie]

Dana why don't you give the 07 team a chance at least more than five games before you start judging them based on your gut feeling.

 

Lets remember that the 04 team played .500 ball for a large chunk of the season. There were certainly times when my gut feeling about them wasn't very good. Especially after they got swept in NY in June.

 

The 03/04 Red Sox were very fortunate that they were able to get three good players at rock bottom prices (Ortiz, Mueller, Millar) due to a recession that put prices down throughout baseball.

 

Players of similar stature (especially Ortiz) would not be available at such low prices today.

[CrespoBlows]

This is the stupidest discussion I've ever spent a fair amount of time on. You point to some good teams. You obviously changed the wording from "loaded" (which is a subjective and slippery term) to "dominant" (which is an after-thought assessment) and thus set up an argument that you can't lose. You point to dominant teams' date=' so what?[/b']

 

My definition of loaded, is a dominant team. A team loaded with talent, tends to dominate. You get it? It's not that hard.

 

Will there be dominant teams this year? Yes.

 

Brilliant. Thanks for pointing that gem out.

 

Did you name any of them as "loaded" when I asked earlier "which teams would you point to that are dominant?". No.

 

Oh, I didn't? Because when I said loaded = dominant, I think you should be able to use that equation. Since you're stupid, I'll say it again. All of the teams I listed WERE LOADED.

 

 

All the teams this year and in years past have had weaknesses, often with questions about the bullpen, the offense produced by a player or two in the lineup, etc.,

 

Having one or two players that are weak is completely different then having, a whole bullpen that is weak, Papelbon excluded, a bottom part of the order that is weak, and a weak four and five starters.

 

Given that this discuss started with SOMEONE ELSE using the term "loaded" and I responded to HIM, and now you're changing which word we're talking about I just can't stand arguing with you about a non-subject.

 

Yet, you continue to do it.

 

This team is as well equiped as any other to make the playoffs and win. That was my point. By referring to a team as "not being loaded" I took that to mean they weren't going to be able to beat other teams who were loaded.

 

YOU CALLED THIS TEAM LOADED.

 

I beg to differ. Ask 90% of other teams if they think this team is loaded and they will say "Yes".

 

I'm calling you on your ********.

 

You say loaded teams don't start Julian Tavarez, Coco Crisp and Jason Varitek then you list a team that has, just for one quick example, Michael Tucker as the starting RF for ATL, with a .745 OPS and .244 AVG. I really just think you're bitching about guys you don't like on the team in an attempt to make yourself seem smart. Dan Wilson: .708 OPS. How about Al Martin in 100 games with his .715 OPS? Brad Ausmus and his .713 OPS? You shoot your argument in the foot time and time again.

 

The Braves were third in the league in runs scored. The Mariners, first. The Astros, first. Oh, and to top it off, every single one of these teams were first, or second in pitching. If the Red Sox are in the top two in both categories, I will give you $1,000. BTW, Mark McLemore and his 116 OPS+ played 69 games in LF, Stan Javier and his 110 OPS+ played in another 62. Martin was a pinch hitter/defensive replacement. As for Ausmus and Wilson, you know as well as I do, that they were in their for their defensive skills.

 

If your point is that either "dominant" or "loaded" teams don't have weak spots I think you should look again at what you provided. Again, though, I've been saying that for a few pages now; so if you want to continue putting out thoughtful posts that take a lot of time, be my guest. I'm just done with your argumentitiveness.

 

The Red Sox have several weak spots, those teams didn't. If you can honestly say that one or two Mariners players who are below average takes them down from being dominant, then I can honestly say that you are a moron.

 

We can settle this quickly though.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the board, who here, would call the 2007 Boston Red Sox, a loaded baseball team?

[schillingouttheks]

Not loaded...has the potential to be a pretty good team that can win the world series if a lot of (and I mean A LOT) question marks and ifs go its way, though.

 

The lack of production in the bottom third of the lineup, a shaky bullpen, and lack of a 5th started are glaring holes.

[YazsTripleCrown]

The best team, highest payroll, most all stars do not mean squat in a best of 7 series, One game playoff or one game championship. Nor do records and stats. It comes down to the human factor. Who wants it more. Who is willing to give the extra effort. Who is going to sacrifice his body for the good of the team. There are no stats or records for Heart and determination. That is why in sports. The best team does not always win. That is why certain players will live forever in lore and legend. Because they rose to the occasion.

[pudge]

I'm just waiting for you to make your point' date=' you useless sack of s***.[/quote']i can see this board hasnt changed much .

[seabeachfred]

Not loaded...has the potential to be a pretty good team that can win the world series if a lot of (and I mean A LOT) question marks and ifs go its way, though.

 

The lack of production in the bottom third of the lineup, a shaky bullpen, and lack of a 5th started are glaring holes.

 

And that should be the end of this discussion Schill. Your description as it relates to the Red Sox is right on the mark and all the other s*** is just splitting hairs. We are NOT a loaded team with Taverez as fifth starter, we are not a loaded team with a rapidly declining Varitek, a slumping Lowell, and a comotose CocoPops in our lineup, and if that isn't bad enough except for Ellsbury we have no one ready on the farm for a quick pick-me-upper. Five games? Yes, it is early but is how we have played. We look dead out there. I am flying to Boston tomorrow for the first four home games and I sure wouldn't think I was getting my money's worth if they play as they have their first five.

[seabeachfred]

Just because your dad did that to you doesnt make it right.. now smahten up .. and try to keep it Sox related you... fat bastard

 

Dana, don't even waste your time with that prick. He loves getting nasty and personal with others when in fact he is all mouth and most of the time he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. You would be hard pressed to see that ******* at a Red Sox game all year. He loves to question everyone else's loyalty to the team and how he has rooted for the Red Sox for a quarter century but more and more of us are seeing what a ******** this guy is. Insults are part of his persona even though he is unaware that the biggest insult of all is when that fat tub of s*** looks in the mirror.

 

I get your point my friend. Stick to your guns. Whether you are right or wrong you have a point of view and an opinion and should stay with it. That is what this board is for. He and his two compadres (and they know who they are) use personal attacks as they modus operandi. I'm with you all the way on this.

[CrespoBlows]

The best team' date=' highest payroll, most all stars do not mean squat in a best of 7 series, One game playoff or one game championship. Nor do records and stats. It comes down to the human factor. Who wants it more. Who is willing to give the extra effort. Who is going to sacrifice his body for the good of the team. There are no stats or records for Heart and determination. That is why in sports. The best team does not always win. That is why certain players will live forever in lore and legend. Because they rose to the occasion.[/quote']

 

This is probably the dumbest, most cliche ridden post I've ever read.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Yaz'sTripleCrown

The best team, highest payroll, most all stars do not mean squat in a best of 7 series, One game playoff or one game championship. Nor do records and stats. It comes down to the human factor. Who wants it more. Who is willing to give the extra effort. Who is going to sacrifice his body for the good of the team. There are no stats or records for Heart and determination. That is why in sports. The best team does not always win. That is why certain players will live forever in lore and legend. Because they rose to the occasion.

KC is not going to win this year no matter the size of their heart, not in a short series or otherwise. The best team almost always wins. Determination and mental approach is part of being a good player and a good team. Only in rarest of instance is pure luck the deciding factor. Getting hot at the right time is not luck and it doesn't mean that a better team is getting beat by an inferior team. The hot team is the better team.

[example1]

Crespo, my poiint was that you changed the term from "Loaded" referring to an assessment of a team at the beginning of a season to "dominant" by pointing to the final records of teams that were dominant. It was a weak rhetorical device and something I've come to expect from your abrasive-ass.

 

There have been plenty of teams that were called "loaded" before the season but not "dominant" afterwards. How about last year's Yankees team? Do you think they were called loaded by anyone on April 7th of 2006? Yes. They most certainly were. Farnsworth to set up Mariano, Damon to lead off, a lineup of Damon, Jeter, Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, Sheffield, etc., Does that fit your particular definition of loaded? No, because they didn't end up being dominant. They were in 2nd for much of the season and weakly fizzled out of the playoffs. Does your definition of loaded dictate every conversation and discussion about teams? No. Does your style of arguing annoy people and make it less likely that an intelligent discussion will take place? Yes. Clearly.

 

I don't give a flying f*** if this team is loaded and I don't give a flying f*** about your self-rightious opinion. I think this is potentially a great team. I think the "weak" spots you point to can certainly be as weak as the weak spots on those dominant teams. Ausmus is primarily defensive? Wow, Varitek seems to do a pretty good job behind the plate.

 

Again, the fact that the very first team you listed (the White Sox of 05) was shown to be full of holes both before the season and afterwards indicates that even you, oh mighty pontificator of all things baseball, didn't have a grasp on what you meant by loaded. So it makes me think you're just arguing to be an ass and not trying to prove a point... that's how I've been approaching your posts ever since. The only point you seem to try to prove is that I'm full of s*** and don't know what I'm talking about... about a term that is not only subjective and important only to you, but which you have changed to fit your argument and defined clearly once, but poorly.

 

I don't except your premise that a LOADED team = a DOMINANT team, because that would keep one from EVER making a claim about whether a team is loaded going into a season, which was the whole point of this discussion. If the proof is only in the pudding, so to speak, then calling a team loaded before a season is impossible yet you hear it all the time and it was the crux of this discussion. Instead of arguing "a loaded team is a dominant one and we haven't seen if this team is dominant yet" you said, essentially, "this team isn't loaded because they are NOT dominant". I said 5 games was too early to make such an assessment and you start calling me full of s***.

 

Do you understand that? I expect nothing but an abrasive answer and I'm telling you this time, I WILL NOT RESPOND. The only reason I keep writing is to refrain from giving you the satisfaction of thinking you 'won' some argument where you changed the terminology wantonly and insulted an otherwise good poster here with insults like being full of s*** and the like.

 

Very simply:

 

If LOADED = DOMINANT

and

DOMINANT = Won a ton of games

then

LOADED = Won a ton of games

 

You can't assess your definition of Loaded until you see the team's final record, yet you keep saying you can.

 

Are you saying that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for this team to win 102 games this season? I'm not ready to say that yet, 5 games into the season. You will get support for your view here among the traditionally conservative people like a700 and the like, but that doesn't mean that the baseball gods can't give Crisp a good season, have Donnelly back to form, get Timlin back at 90% and put Lester back into the rotation (he was hitting 96 yesterday aparently) to make this team a very, very good club.

 

That's all I'm saying man. Settle down and get a life.

[example1]

This is probably the dumbest' date=' most cliche ridden post I've ever read.[/quote']

 

I can't help but agree with this assessment. I didn't think it was that bad, but I kept reading and it kept going on and on. While the sentiment is right, "lore and legend" killed me.

[riverside sluggers]

The 2004 team wasnt a "loaded" team until they filled in the necessary pieces on the day of the trading deadline. From there, they took off like a shot out of a cannon. Moves can and will be be made. Its just the question is, can Theo pull off the same magic?

[ksushi]

Dana, you're also quick to say Mueller over Lowell, but where is Mueller now champ? Let me tell you, on the Dodgers payroll, but not on the field. Way to be a moron. Damon, Mueller and Pedro were the three guys from that championship team that were bound to walk because of age. The team had a young core of arms coming up, and it didn't make sense to re-sign those guys with shorter shelf lives to play along side them, the kids would be expected to win now, because with all that money tied up in guys like Mueller, Pedro (both recieving big checks right now to do absolutely nothing) and Damon, when their performance begins to head south it will be totally up to a group of young kids to carry this team on their own. Imagine a staff of Lester, Bucholz, Beckett and Papelbon in the pen with a lineup of back up players at third right and center and guys like Tavarez and other spot starters filling more significant time then they are now. No matsuzaka, no drew, no flashy SS's, and we probably would have traded Manny out of neccessity for less than he was worth for some breathing room in the payroll.

 

Theo makes some good moves and some bad moves but no one ever talks about his non-moves. Letting Mueller and Pedro walk were huge ballsy moves that paid off big time. Letting Damon go was a little wasteful, but thats not to say he should have been brought back. One of my friends at school pointed out that it would have been getting max-value for Damon to trade him at the '05 deadline. Keep Jay Payton who went on to hit .300ish with good pop in a full-time role in oakland that year, get some good pitching maybe for Damon and the Sox might not have made such an early exit in the playoffs that year. Since '04 most people would probably give Theo about a c/b, I have to give him a b+ our team is primed to rip off some serious winning streaks when our pitching starts to click.

 

Schilling is fine, he had poor location but his velocity is fine. 91-94, just like 2004 when he won 21. Pitchers lose velocity with age, not control, it was a bad start maybe due to lack of work in ST. Beckett had poor control in his last start, probably because its rough throwing a curve in cold weather, anyone who pitched in massachusetts in high school knows that. He showed me something though. Beckett last year would have turned that into a very forgettable start, but he battled. He didn't battle once last year. He was either good or awful. And with D-mat, I think we have the best front 3 in baseball.

 

Thank Theo. Don't get down on this team unless they flop all the way through May. The way the Yankees rotation is shaping up right now, we are primed to have a big year and take the division. I'm sure jack-o will jump all over me for that, but the fact is, the Yanks lineup is great, but it won't be able to put up enough runs to keep up with that awful rotation. I'd be more worried about the Yankees dropping 2 to the O's than I would the Sox dropping 2 to the Rangers. Wake put out a great start the other day and we got shut out, that won't happen often... and Tavarez is going to be out of our rotation sooner rather than later. The yanks might wind up in shambles before its all said and done. I'm not in the least bit worried right now. Too many good signs to ignore right now.

 

Sorry this was a huge ramble, but I haven't been posting much and I'm getting back into it.

[seabeachfred]

Dana, you're also quick to say Mueller over Lowell, but where is Mueller now champ? Let me tell you, on the Dodgers payroll, but not on the field. Way to be a moron. Damon, Mueller and Pedro were the three guys from that championship team that were bound to walk because of age. The team had a young core of arms coming up, and it didn't make sense to re-sign those guys with shorter shelf lives to play along side them, the kids would be expected to win now, because with all that money tied up in guys like Mueller, Pedro (both recieving big checks right now to do absolutely nothing) and Damon, when their performance begins to head south it will be totally up to a group of young kids to carry this team on their own. Imagine a staff of Lester, Bucholz, Beckett and Papelbon in the pen with a lineup of back up players at third right and center and guys like Tavarez and other spot starters filling more significant time then they are now. No matsuzaka, no drew, no flashy SS's, and we probably would have traded Manny out of neccessity for less than he was worth for some breathing room in the payroll.

 

Theo makes some good moves and some bad moves but no one ever talks about his non-moves. Letting Mueller and Pedro walk were huge ballsy moves that paid off big time. Letting Damon go was a little wasteful, but thats not to say he should have been brought back. One of my friends at school pointed out that it would have been getting max-value for Damon to trade him at the '05 deadline. Keep Jay Payton who went on to hit .300ish with good pop in a full-time role in oakland that year, get some good pitching maybe for Damon and the Sox might not have made such an early exit in the playoffs that year. Since '04 most people would probably give Theo about a c/b, I have to give him a b+ our team is primed to rip off some serious winning streaks when our pitching starts to click.

 

Schilling is fine, he had poor location but his velocity is fine. 91-94, just like 2004 when he won 21. Pitchers lose velocity with age, not control, it was a bad start maybe due to lack of work in ST. Beckett had poor control in his last start, probably because its rough throwing a curve in cold weather, anyone who pitched in massachusetts in high school knows that. He showed me something though. Beckett last year would have turned that into a very forgettable start, but he battled. He didn't battle once last year. He was either good or awful. And with D-mat, I think we have the best front 3 in baseball.

 

Thank Theo. Don't get down on this team unless they flop all the way through May. The way the Yankees rotation is shaping up right now, we are primed to have a big year and take the division. I'm sure jack-o will jump all over me for that, but the fact is, the Yanks lineup is great, but it won't be able to put up enough runs to keep up with that awful rotation. I'd be more worried about the Yankees dropping 2 to the O's than I would the Sox dropping 2 to the Rangers. Wake put out a great start the other day and we got shut out, that won't happen often... and Tavarez is going to be out of our rotation sooner rather than later. The yanks might wind up in shambles before its all said and done. I'm not in the least bit worried right now. Too many good signs to ignore right now.

 

Sorry this was a huge ramble, but I haven't been posting much and I'm getting back into it.

 

Damn you ksushi, why don't you post more????? I badly needed a positive shot in the arm and you came through and gave it to me. Thanks!!!! Tell, me, though, in the last line of your second paragraph, can you tell me when we are going to start ripping off that big winning streak? I'm flying to Boston tomorrow for the Seattle series and the first Angel game and it would be swell if we could start the streak tonight and carry if over the next week or so. Throw out some positive vibes so we can get off the floor and on to the business at hand of winning the AL East this season.

 

Your post really made sense and the only thing I would find wrong with it was replacing Damon with Crisp. That looks like it is going to turn out to be one big penguin in the garden.

[seabeachfred]

The best team' date=' highest payroll, most all stars do not mean squat in a best of 7 series, One game playoff or one game championship. Nor do records and stats. It comes down to the human factor. Who wants it more. Who is willing to give the extra effort. Who is going to sacrifice his body for the good of the team. There are no stats or records for Heart and determination. That is why in sports. The best team does not always win. That is why certain players will live forever in lore and legend. Because they rose to the occasion.[/quote']

 

Yaz, if you would have quit after your first three sentences you would have been right on the mark. The rest of it is, as Crespo says, chiche after chiche. Now in high school, Babe Ruth, even Stan Musial ball what you say is true because I have managed teams in those programs, but on a ML level there is no way the Nationals are going to play the Royals in the WS this year if they had all the heart and determination in the world. I am less critical of your post than Crespo is, but I have to tell you those points you make do not make much of a difference on the ML level. Talent and strength, depth and power hitting and pitching is what counts.

[ksushi]

I don't like Crisp, but I don't hate him either. I hated the Crisp trade, but he has been a good hitter in the past and it would surprise me if he absolutely sucked. I just liked Marte, almost as much as I like Ellsbury. If Crisp is a stop-gap for Ellsbury and we move him for a reliever or a prospect and bring up Ellsbury at some point maybe not this year, I'm happy.

[CrespoBlows]

Crespo, my poiint was that you changed the term from "Loaded" referring to an assessment of a team at the beginning of a season to "dominant" by pointing to the final records of teams that were dominant. It was a weak rhetorical device and something I've come to expect from your abrasive-ass.

 

There have been plenty of teams that were called "loaded" before the season but not "dominant" afterwards. How about last year's Yankees team? Do you think they were called loaded by anyone on April 7th of 2006? Yes. They most certainly were. Farnsworth to set up Mariano, Damon to lead off, a lineup of Damon, Jeter, Giambi, A-Rod, Matsui, Sheffield, etc., Does that fit your particular definition of loaded? No, because they didn't end up being dominant. They were in 2nd for much of the season and weakly fizzled out of the playoffs. Does your definition of loaded dictate every conversation and discussion about teams? No. Does your style of arguing annoy people and make it less likely that an intelligent discussion will take place? Yes. Clearly.

 

I don't give a flying f*** if this team is loaded and I don't give a flying f*** about your self-rightious opinion. I think this is potentially a great team. I think the "weak" spots you point to can certainly be as weak as the weak spots on those dominant teams. Ausmus is primarily defensive? Wow, Varitek seems to do a pretty good job behind the plate.

 

Again, the fact that the very first team you listed (the White Sox of 05) was shown to be full of holes both before the season and afterwards indicates that even you, oh mighty pontificator of all things baseball, didn't have a grasp on what you meant by loaded. So it makes me think you're just arguing to be an ass and not trying to prove a point... that's how I've been approaching your posts ever since. The only point you seem to try to prove is that I'm full of s*** and don't know what I'm talking about... about a term that is not only subjective and important only to you, but which you have changed to fit your argument and defined clearly once, but poorly.

 

I don't except your premise that a LOADED team = a DOMINANT team, because that would keep one from EVER making a claim about whether a team is loaded going into a season, which was the whole point of this discussion. If the proof is only in the pudding, so to speak, then calling a team loaded before a season is impossible yet you hear it all the time and it was the crux of this discussion. Instead of arguing "a loaded team is a dominant one and we haven't seen if this team is dominant yet" you said, essentially, "this team isn't loaded because they are NOT dominant". I said 5 games was too early to make such an assessment and you start calling me full of s***.

 

Do you understand that? I expect nothing but an abrasive answer and I'm telling you this time, I WILL NOT RESPOND. The only reason I keep writing is to refrain from giving you the satisfaction of thinking you 'won' some argument where you changed the terminology wantonly and insulted an otherwise good poster here with insults like being full of s*** and the like.

 

Very simply:

 

If LOADED = DOMINANT

and

DOMINANT = Won a ton of games

then

LOADED = Won a ton of games

 

You can't assess your definition of Loaded until you see the team's final record, yet you keep saying you can.

 

Are you saying that it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for this team to win 102 games this season? I'm not ready to say that yet, 5 games into the season. You will get support for your view here among the traditionally conservative people like a700 and the like, but that doesn't mean that the baseball gods can't give Crisp a good season, have Donnelly back to form, get Timlin back at 90% and put Lester back into the rotation (he was hitting 96 yesterday aparently) to make this team a very, very good club.

 

That's all I'm saying man. Settle down and get a life.

 

 

This may be the most blatant misrepresentation of a position ever.

 

Oh, and you call yourself "settled?" Hypocrite.

[jacksonianmarch]

at some point you just have to accept some of the s***** things your FO has done, believe me, I know the feeling. It is time you accept the lineup/rotation/pen and hope for the best or see if there is a solution for the future. No sense in rehashing at this point.

[seabeachfred]

at some point you just have to accept some of the s***** things your FO has done' date=' believe me, I know the feeling. It is time you accept the lineup/rotation/pen and hope for the best or see if there is a solution for the future. No sense in rehashing at this point.[/quote']

 

Jackson, I like you and respect you more but right now I am very pissed off at what you wrote. Did you see the Red Sox game tonight on ESPN? Accept the rotation/pen????? Are you freakin' serious. With a numnut like Francona managing my team? You know your baseball. Tell me why the f*** he brought in that piece of garbage Piniero into the eighth inning with a narrow 3-1 lead. This is typical Francona stupidity, stubborness, myopic behavior. The guy has been a royal choke-up for the past three-plus seasons and is not the type you want to protect anything less than a seven or eight run lead. You know what?

Tuesday before the game when everyone is down near the dugout trying to get the players' attention I going to give to Francona good and proper. What a freakin' stupid thing to do. What about Donnelly?? What about Lopez? At least those two have pitched well. And don't tell me Torre would have done the same thing. He would not have. He is a better manager than that dork we have running the Red Sox.

[jacksonianmarch]

Torre would have trotted Proctor out there. That is default. So long as Proctor's arm is still attached to his body, he will go into the game.

[example1]

I don't like Crisp' date=' but I don't hate him either. I hated the Crisp trade, but he has been a good hitter in the past and it would surprise me if he absolutely sucked. I just liked Marte, almost as much as I like Ellsbury. If Crisp is a stop-gap for Ellsbury and we move him for a reliever or a prospect and bring up Ellsbury at some point maybe not this year, I'm happy.[/quote']

 

I think there's a very good chance that Marte would have hit 6 HR last year and not produced a whole lot. While I agree that he could be a very good player I don't think we'd be seeing a whole lot his production yet and there would be complaints about lack of production at 3rd instead of CF.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yeah, but to have a 3b with that kind of potential vs a CFer with a limited ceiling seems a no brainer to me.